(2019) a Systematic Literature Review of Intimate Partner Violence Victimisation: an Inclusive Review Across Gender and Sexuality
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Laskey, Philippa, Bates, Elizabeth and Taylor, Julie (2019) A systematic literature review of intimate partner violence victimisation: an inclusive review across gender and sexuality. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 47 . pp. 1-11. Downloaded from: http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/4527/ Usage of any items from the University of Cumbria’s institutional repository ‘Insight’ must conform to the following fair usage guidelines. Any item and its associated metadata held in the University of Cumbria’s institutional repository Insight (unless stated otherwise on the metadata record) may be copied, displayed or performed, and stored in line with the JISC fair dealing guidelines (available here) for educational and not-for-profit activities provided that • the authors, title and full bibliographic details of the item are cited clearly when any part of the work is referred to verbally or in the written form • a hyperlink/URL to the original Insight record of that item is included in any citations of the work • the content is not changed in any way • all files required for usage of the item are kept together with the main item file. You may not • sell any part of an item • refer to any part of an item without citation • amend any item or contextualise it in a way that will impugn the creator’s reputation • remove or alter the copyright statement on an item. The full policy can be found here. Alternatively contact the University of Cumbria Repository Editor by emailing [email protected]. Running Head: IPV VICTIM EXPERIENCES ACROSS GENDER AND SEXUALITY 1 A Systematic Literature Review of Intimate Partner Violence Victimisation: An Inclusive Review Across Gender and Sexuality Philippa Laskeyª*, Elizabeth A. Batesª & Julie C. Taylorª ªDepartment of Psychology, University of Cumbria, Cumbria UK *Corresponding Author at: Department of Applied Psychology, University of Cumbria, Fusehill Street, Carlisle, Cumbria, UK CA1 2HH Tel: +44 1228 616255 Email: [email protected] IPV VICTIM EXPERIENCES ACROSS GENDER AND SEXUALITY 2 Abstract The traditional view of intimate partner violence (IPV) is that the perpetrator is male and the victim is female (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson & Daly, 1992). As a result of this, most research into victimisation experiences appears to be conducted with female victims of IPV (Morin, 2014), and research with male victims, and victims from the LGBTQ+ community is less common. The main aim of the current research was to conduct a systematic literature review to synthesise the literature base of IPV victimisation experiences to ascertain how abuse is experienced, and the effects of that abuse. The secondary aim was to investigate the prevalence of different victim groups, across gender and sexuality, in current research studies. The review highlighted that victims of IPV experience several different types of abuse and the negative mental and physical health outcomes associated with that abuse are significant. Additionally, it was found that the large majority of research studies included in the review were conducted with female victims in opposite-sex relationships, and were quantitative and cross-sectional in nature. The implications of these findings are discussed and suggestions for future research are put forward. Keywords: systematic literature review, intimate partner violence, victim experience, gender, sexuality IPV VICTIM EXPERIENCES ACROSS GENDER AND SEXUALITY 3 Introduction Violence and abuse that occurs in an intimate relationship has been a topic of interest since the feminist movement in the 1970’s, however, it is only recently that the focus has been turned on to male victims and victims from the LGBTQ+ community. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in the UK defines domestic violence as “…any incident of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of their gender or sexuality” (CPS, 2017). While the CPS definition reflects domestic violence, the current review will use the term intimate partner violence (IPV) as it is the most commonly used within the literature, and the focus here will be on partner violence, rather than violence within the wider family. IPV is defined as “physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). Despite there being a focus on physical abuse in some studies, the effects of any type of abuse within a relationship can be significant and long lasting. Abusive behaviours can range from the overt, such as punching, kicking, or pushing (Jaffe & Schub, 2011) to the more covert behaviours such as isolation, threats, or stalking (Grose & Cabrera, 2011). Whilst non-physical forms of abuse have not historically received as much attention, more recently there has been recognition within research and policy to the significant impact it has; in 2015 a new law concerning coercive control was introduced in the UK that criminalises this behaviour in the absence of physical violence. This new law defines coercive behaviour as “…an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim” and controlling behaviour as “…a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and IPV VICTIM EXPERIENCES ACROSS GENDER AND SEXUALITY 4 regulating their everyday behaviour” (CPS, 2017). The addition of this new law further aids in understanding the complexity of IPV. This complexity is also seen in the literature exploring the causes and nature of IPV. Some traditional gendered models (e.g., see Dobash & Dobash, 1979) have focused on the influence of patriarchy and the historically and socially constructed nature of coercive control that causes men’s violence towards women, seeing women’s violence as mostly self-defensive (Saunders, 1988). This control has also been seen as one of the factors implicated in different typologies of IPV; for example, Johnson’s (1995) typology distinguishes between violence that occurs in the absence of control, and that which occurs as part of a wider pattern of controlling abuse. Whilst power and control as a motive is one seen commonly within the literature on motivations, it is not the only such motivation; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars and Misra (2012) found power/control, self-defence, expression of negative emotion, retaliation, and jealousy as commonly cited motivations in their systematic review and there were very few gender specific differences found. This points to a need to fully understand the nature of the IPV and its motivations in order to ensure interventions are tailored appropriately for people within all types of relationships. IPV has traditionally been investigated from the feminist perspective that the perpetrator is male and the victim is female (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson & Daly, 1992). This is demonstrated in both policy and practice, with awareness campaigns, offender treatment programs, and victim support services being developed according to this traditional view of IPV (male-to-female violence; Nayback-Beebe & Yoder, 2012). In contrast, evidence has been found of IPV being perpetrated by women in opposite-sex relationships (e.g. Carney, Buttell & Dutton, 2007), within same-sex relationships (e.g. Carvalho, Lewis, Derlega, Winstead & Viggiano, 2011), and in relationships where the victim is transgender (e.g. The Scottish Trans Alliance, 2010). However, it appears that the representation of victims of IPV within the IPV VICTIM EXPERIENCES ACROSS GENDER AND SEXUALITY 5 literature is weighted towards women in opposite-sex relationships. When looking at UK national crime statistics, of those who had experienced partner abuse since the age of 16, 9.6% were men and 19.9% were women (Office for National Statistics, 2018), which provides some indication of why the focus of most IPV research is on female victims. In order to provide adequate support services to victims of IPV, research must be conducted to investigate their experiences, across gender and sexuality. While some abuse may be impacted by both gender and sexuality, far too often these terms are wrongly conflated. It is important to consider the unique experiences associated with both gender and sexuality. This review will attempt to separate gender and sexuality when looking at victimisation. Gender and IPV Victimisation The majority of research into IPV victimisation focusses on female victims in opposite-sex relationships (Morin, 2014); likely as a result of the traditional gendered (or feminist) perspective that the perpetrator of IPV is male and the victim is female. Research has shown that the victimisation of women by their partners is a substantial issue worldwide (Garcia- Morero, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise & Watts, 2006). The studies conducted on this population have covered many factors associated with female heterosexual IPV victimisation, such as the extent of injuries involved (e.g. Thompson, Saltzman & Johnson, 2003), help-seeking behaviour (e.g. Martin, Houston, Mmari & Decker, 2012), the impact of psychological abuse (e.g. Coker, Smith, Bethea, King & McKeown, 2000), the impact of IPV on pregnant women (e.g. Campbell, 2002) as well as investigations into trauma and PTSD (e.g. Browne,